If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

a bad team with bad management does not need extra help. It needs new management.

Owners would be more less tolerant of losing games if bad GMs didn't have the lottery to use as a crutch for losing.

With guaranteed contracts, a bad GM can saddle even the best management with years worth of handicaps.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree that the only reason for a run of bad years is that the FO is incompetent. Rebuilding, loss of a great player to nagging injury, players going bat-****** crazy...

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

Under your system of using several years worth of records would punish teams who are great and then try to rebuild and reload. Look at the Bulls in 99 for example, perennial contenders. Had just three peated. Third worst record in the league the next year, why should their previous great season preclude them from getting a high draft pick, they clearly needed one.

This might be an extreme example. But we should never gauge a teams need of a high draft pick on how they were 2 or 3 years before.

Because being bad for one year is not the indication of the players being an issue, mainly because it can be done via not making use (or being able to make use) of existing resources (see: getting Tim Duncan when DRob was injured).

Because the point is not to give a franchise coming off a great player the next great player - that's the road to only a couple of franchises continuing to win while all the rest lose. The whole point of a draft is to try to equalize competition.

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

Because being bad for one year is not the indication of the players being an issue, mainly because it can be done via not making use (or being able to make use) of existing resources (see: getting Tim Duncan when DRob was injured).

Because the point is not to give a franchise coming off a great player the next great player - that's the road to only a couple of franchises continuing to win while all the rest lose. The whole point of a draft is to try to equalize competition.

So its better to reward bad management than good management? Making it impossible for teams to build through the draft, either through incompetence or being held back because the league is showing the incompetent teams favoritism.

And the Bulls weren't bad for a year. The Bulls were rebuilding not a guarantee of success. As evidence that even with those top picks they got, it took them what over a decade to be relevant again. Top picks are no guarantee, but you shouldn't punish a team for having been good in the past and trying to rebuild for the future.

So, how about this. Instead of aiming for the team with the WORST record in a 5 year span, how about the team that has (say) the 5th worst record in that span, by weighting coming in worst - fourth worst at the same negative as coming in (say) 7th worst - 10th worst. Keep the same limitations as to number of #1 picks or top 3 picks in that 5 year span.

It would be a LOT less intuitive to figure out without crunching numbers, but you'd not reward teams that were the absolute worst every year, you'd be more likely to reward teams trying to rebuild with top-10 picks (at least), and you'd still have the advantages of no tanking, no winner-takes-all, and spreading the wealth.

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

So its better to reward bad management than good management? Making it impossible for teams to build through the draft, either through incompetence or being held back because the league is showing the incompetent teams favoritism.

And the Bulls weren't bad for a year. The Bulls were rebuilding not a guarantee of success. As evidence that even with those top picks they got, it took them what over a decade to be relevant again. Top picks are no guarantee, but you shouldn't punish a team for having been good in the past and trying to rebuild for the future.

And the ONLY reason the Bulls were perceived as getting over the hump was because they got lucky and jumped from 10th to 1st in the DRose draft.

If you believe that the only reason a team misses the playoffs more than one year is because of bad management, we can't continue from here. If you believe that a team should never have to go through rebuilding, that they should be able to get the #1 draft pick by having a bad season after winning their 6th championship in 10 years, we're done here. The point is not to keep the same team having the best player in the league year after year after year.

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

I believe teams can miss the playoffs once or twice due to bad luck. 3+ times? That's either bad management or intentional. Making the playoffs is not rocket science. More than half the NBA does it every season.

Last edited by Kstat; 11-01-2013 at 05:44 PM.

It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

And thats the problem with your idea. Because other teams with competent management who could actually use those picks well and build a team with them would get screwed over and never able to advance and get the picks they deserve.

They will just keep losing knowing next year they get yet another shot at the next Lebron or MJ. The only reason we see so much tanking this year is because the class is so deep several teams know they will get a prize. It would be year in and year out with your idea.

The traditional model where teams eventually do rebuild simply because they don't know where they will land in the draft is much better. I mean the bobcats suck, but its not because they have continually been tanking.

If the team repeatedly chooses the wrong players, how can they be screwing over the teams behind them? If anything they're helping them because they teams drafting behind them would still get the good picks but would get to pay them a reduced salary.

In any case, it wouldn't be very difficult to come up with a fair weighted system. Say the current year accounts for twice as much weight as the year before, which counts for twice as much as the year before. So roughly your record for the current year would be worth ~57%, the year before that ~29%, and the year before that ~14%. So a team that finished with the worst record twice and then the best record (of the lottery) would have a weighted position of .14 + .29 + 14(.57) = 8.4, whereas a team that finished with the best record twice, then the worst record would have a weighted position of .14(14) + .29(14) + .57 = 6.59. Both teams get good picks, but the second team finished best twice and worst once and still gets a better draft position.

It's not a perfect system, but it would definitely eliminate short term tanking. It would not, however, stop teams from stripping their team to the bone and making a concerted effort to rebuild through the draft while holding on to talented players. But I don't see anything wrong with that kind of strategy.

If the team repeatedly chooses the wrong players, how can they be screwing over the teams behind them? If anything they're helping them because they teams drafting behind them would still get the good picks but would get to pay them a reduced salary.

In any case, it wouldn't be very difficult to come up with a fair weighted system. Say the current year accounts for twice as much weight as the year before, which counts for twice as much as the year before. So roughly your record for the current year would be worth ~57%, the year before that ~29%, and the year before that ~14%. So a team that finished with the worst record twice and then the best record (of the lottery) would have a weighted position of .14 + .29 + 14(.57) = 8.4, whereas a team that finished with the best record twice, then the worst record would have a weighted position of .14(14) + .29(14) + .57 = 6.59. Both teams get good picks, but the second team finished best twice and worst once and still gets a better draft position.

It's not a perfect system, but it would definitely eliminate short term tanking. It would not, however, stop teams from stripping their team to the bone and making a concerted effort to rebuild through the draft while holding on to talented players. But I don't see anything wrong with that kind of strategy.

Building a winning team is about more than the draft. Teams often are able to draft the right players in the draft then just not surround them with the pieces to have success. Look at Lebron in Cleveland for example. Where as Miami took Wade later and put a team behind him. Which is why they won it all in 2006. THat and some help from the refs.

Putting a winning team is a two part, good drafting and good management. The perennially bad teams have neither and thus will waste the draft picks.

"Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

"And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "
Want your own "Just Say No to Kamen" from @mkroeger pic? http://twitpic.com/a3hmca

I don't think they need a revenue hit. I think they need a pride hit. IF there isn't a significant reward for losing, then they don't have any more empty excuses to sell their fanbase, they're just a bad owner of a bad team.

The bigger issue is that fans don't demand success anymore, because they're buying in to the same fantasy.

I can't help but notice once GSW's owner started getting booed in his own arena....the warriors stopped being a crappy team.

Last edited by Kstat; 11-01-2013 at 06:10 PM.

It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

A revenue hit for being perennially bad might make them take things more serious.

Perhaps a penalty for 3 seasons in a row without the playoffs. Unless improvement in the second and third year showing its a rebuilding effort.

I fail to see how penalizing a team that can't figure out is supposed to make them better. These teams aren't purposefully staying bad for half of a decade or more. You can't just fire your clearly bad GM and hire a GM who is clearly good. Even individual GMs have their good years and bad years. Exhibit A: Donnie Walsh.

Plus, it will never happen. You can't financially penalize them because no owner would ever agree to a provision that takes away money from the owners because players don't produce. Secondly, you can't impose a competitive penalty because...well, why would you need to impose a competitive penalty on a bad team?

I don't think they need a revenue hit. I think they need a pride hit. IF there isn't a significant reward for losing, then they don't have any more empty excuses to sell their fanbase, they're just a bad owner of a bad team.

The bigger issue is that fans don't demand success anymore, because they're buying in to the same fantasy.

If owners are okay with it, the players are okay with it, and fans are okay with it....what's the problem?

If owners are okay with it, the players are okay with it, and fans are okay with it....what's the problem?

Because it's bad basketball. It's bad for fans everywhere else that want to see a competitive game. Given how much the NBA is pushing out-of-market games on league PASS, that's a bigger concern now than ever.

It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.